[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope-Coders] Collector Status Meanings

[Chris Withers]

Ken Manheimer wrote:
> I *really* don't think the "pending rejection" distinction adds value.  

It REALLY does on bug days ;-)

It's useful to be able to do "right, this is in pending rejection / 
deferred.. when was it put there? over a month ago? okay, it goes...

> harvested and sent to rejected if there's not followup.  (It would be 
> really nice if we could put an "expiration date" on the thing, whereon it 
> gets moved to rejected automatically...)

That would also do the trick!

>   - Languishing hard-to-placers that are not so important are moved to
>     deferred, to get out of the way of the more important pending items.
>     If someone complains, the importance can be reevaluated.
>   - Obviously perpetual deferred items can be reassessed and moved to
>     wontfix.

This is the problem step. Who does this and when?

I'd prefer stuff to stay in the forefront and get dealt with, one way or 
another... I'm doing my best to see that happen with as many issues as 
possible...

> I also appreciate that this is getting resolved, and think it's important 
> to get the agreed-upon state-definitions there.  We need to resolve the 
> definitions.  I think some of the objections (eg deferred vs pending vs 
> wontfix) is due to noise resulting from inconsistent use of/understanding 
> of the states across supporters.  I think that more clear common 
> understanding would reduce the cause for objections...

Hear hear! *gripes about CollectorStatusesAlt* ;-)

> be rejectable, even if they weren't put there for the purpose.  And useful
> though "wontfix" and "deferred" are, clearly they add a level of nuance
> that allows for misunderstanding which is occurring.  

Not to mention just plain inadvertant misuse to to reappropriation of 
time :-/

> I haven't been using the collector for the breadth of issues as those that 
> come up in the zope collector, so i would ask - does what i proposed above 
> sound workable?

What did you propose?

I like the expirey date thing. If something could get auto-pending'ed 
from defered after being there for a month or two, that would be great. 
I was tempted to say auto-rejected, but that might not be right in all 
cases. Then again, it might, what do people think?

Chris

-- 
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
            - http://www.simplistix.co.uk